Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed two criminal appeals under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Doddaballapura in S.C.No.86/2010 and S.C.No.263/2009. The respondents/accused were acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case pertains to the death of a married woman within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry, leading to her death. However, the trial court found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. The High Court, after hearing the Additional SPP for the State and the Amicus Curiae for the respondents, examined the evidence on record. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses, including the father of the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the case. There was no credible evidence to establish demand of dowry or harassment soon before death. The court held that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not proved. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was found to be proper and not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals, confirming the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts of dowry demand and harassment soon before death. In the absence of credible evidence of demand of dowry and cruelty, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. The trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498-A IPC - The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry. The witnesses turned hostile and there was no independent corroboration. The acquittal was justified. (Paras 8-12) C) Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Demand of Dowry - The evidence on record did not establish any demand of dowry by the accused. The trial court's finding of acquittal was based on lack of evidence and cannot be interfered with. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside; whether the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Doddaballapura in S.C.No.86/2010 and S.C.No.263/2009 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act is rebuttable
- burden on prosecution to prove dowry demand and harassment
- acquittal not to be interfered unless perverse
- benefit of doubt to accused
